Do you also have a car and a drivers licence?

briztoon wrote:I don't believe the argument, "but I own and pay rego on a car to" is valid when you're riding your bike to work. Whether you own and pay rego on one family car or a fleet of cars, you pay rego to be allowed to use those vehicles, not to use your bike.

If you want to argue, "but I contribute to road costs by paying registration on a/multiple motor vehicle/s", then you have to agree with the argument that registration fees help pay for the roads.

Indeed the argument that one already pays rego on another vehicle isn't watertight, but it's not worthless either. My guess is it ill cut off a large % of those who want rego implemented.I often hear the rego doesn't pay for roads argument, but seeing stats/number to back it is rarer (in fact, your link is the first data I've seen).

briztoon wrote:I don't believe the argument, "but I own and pay rego on a car to" is valid when you're riding your bike to work. Whether you own and pay rego on one family car or a fleet of cars, you pay rego to be allowed to use those vehicles, not to use your bike.

If you want to argue, "but I contribute to road costs by paying registration on a/multiple motor vehicle/s", then you have to agree with the argument that registration fees help pay for the roads.

Indeed the argument that one already pays rego on another vehicle isn't watertight, but it's not worthless either. My guess is it ill cut off a large % of those who want rego implemented.I often hear the rego doesn't pay for roads argument, but seeing stats/number to back it is rarer (in fact, your link is the first data I've seen).

Not usually. The most common response to "but I do own a car and pay rego" is, "well I own a motorbike and pay rego on it as well. I have to pay rego on my trailer, motorbike, car and boat, so saying you own and pay rego on a car as well doesn't hold any water. You want to use the road, pay rego to allow you on the road".

I'm not saying I agree with the above argument, I'm just saying don't support their argument by saying "but I have a car and pay rego on it as well".

Perhaps. I see the logic as being you are either a contributor (one who pays reg) or non-contibutor (one who doesn't). If someone pulls the different vehicle card, you can still use the wear and tear rationale

Does that include all the big infrastructure PPP-style road building projects? Does it include all the streets that are built and maintained by local councils?

I know the proposed Melbourne East-West tunnel is being spoken of with a budget of many billions... one such project somewhere in the country every few years wouldn't leave a whole lot else for other roads. And I also have some recollection that most roads spending is done by local councils, who don't get a cent from car registration.

Mulger bill wrote:Does that 3odd billion "rego" revenue include the CTP component? If so, the numbers are even worse...

From my reading of the article, no, as there is a separate figure for "insurance premiums" which is described as "all insurance premiums, not just CTP".

barefoot wrote:

ldrcycles wrote:Annual cost of roads= $14.1 billion

Without the decency to RTFA ...

Does that include all the big infrastructure PPP-style road building projects? Does it include all the streets that are built and maintained by local councils?

I know the proposed Melbourne East-West tunnel is being spoken of with a budget of many billions... one such project somewhere in the country every few years wouldn't leave a whole lot else for other roads. And I also have some recollection that most roads spending is done by local councils, who don't get a cent from car registration.

This from the article "construction and maintenance costs for toll roads by the private sector are not included". They list some of their sources as "Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Transport Statistics, various years; Public road-related expenditure and revenue in Australia", and say

PTUA.org wrote: the Federal Government itself only funds a small number of roads: those classed as part of the AusLink National Network (or before 2004, as National Highways or Roads of National Importance). Most expenditure on roads is incurred by the states, and local government also accounts for a large chunk. Think of all the little streets in your local area: they're entirely Council funded (from rates and developer contributions, not motorist charges), with the odd State or Federal grant chipping in. But Federal operating grants to the states, or to local government, are often not classed as road expenditure despite the fact that a lot of the money gets spent on roads.

EDIT: this breaks it down into federal, state and local so it's easier to understand.

Road Funding Totals ($billion)2008-09

Total:14.936

Commonwealth 4.945 State govts 6.637 Local govts 3.357

When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.

We have 2 cars. Living in a semi rural area with a family of 4 certainly requires one. My wife has a little Toyota Yaris that does around 12000km a year. My 13 year old Toyota Avalon only does 6000km a year.

singlespeedscott wrote: My 13 year old Toyota Avalon only does 6000km a year.

Slightly OT, but for a company who makes so many decent cars, the Avalon was an atrocity.

As much as everybody bags them out mine has been great. For such a large car, with a 6 cylinder motor, it uses bugger all fuel, 9 littes every 100km. It handles great on crap roads. Heaps of room inside. Is Toyota reliable.

My brother always bags me out for it being a boring Grandads car. I point out to him a car is for transport not entertainment. If I wanted serious fun I would by another moto. Bikes, both with and without motors, kill cars for serious fun. My family needs reliable transport not some family sedan with pseudo sporting pretentions like some fools Commodore.

singlespeedscott wrote: My 13 year old Toyota Avalon only does 6000km a year.

Slightly OT, but for a company who makes so many decent cars, the Avalon was a marketing failure

FTFY.

The Avalon was a 6-cylinder Camry with different panels and trim, and slightly mushier suspension.

And with Dame Edna in the back seat.

When it was launched, they did a terrible job of explaining why it existed and who should buy it. Then they did the Dame Edna ads and the trickle of buyers stopped altogether. We had one as a test car at work (we made some components for it (and the Camry, of course, since they were mechanically identical)). It was competent but uninspiring, in a Toyota-meets-the-US-auto-industry way.

They did the same thing when they launched the Aurion. But without softening the suspension, and without the Dame. It was far more successful.

singlespeedscott wrote: My 13 year old Toyota Avalon only does 6000km a year.

Slightly OT, but for a company who makes so many decent cars, the Avalon was a marketing failure

FTFY.

The Avalon was a 6-cylinder Camry with different panels and trim, and slightly mushier suspension.

And with Dame Edna in the back seat.

When it was launched, they did a terrible job of explaining why it existed and who should buy it. Then they did the Dame Edna ads and the trickle of buyers stopped altogether. We had one as a test car at work (we made some components for it (and the Camry, of course, since they were mechanically identical)). It was competent but uninspiring, in a Toyota-meets-the-US-auto-industry way.

They did the same thing when they launched the Aurion. But without softening the suspension, and without the Dame. It was far more successful.

Ahem. Back to the poll.

I still maintain atrocity having spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel of them. But yes, they could have marketed it better.

master6 wrote: Moderators are like Club Handicappers; I often think they are wrong, but I dont want the job.

I'm a motoring enthusiast (not a commuter), as well as a cycling enthusiast. That is I "enjoy" driving as much as I do cycling. The car is not merely a means to an end, or simply a mode of transport for me, but a "toy" that I take pleasure using. Much the same as I do with my bike and cycling.

Hypothetical question with regard rego. When I crash my car and get injured on the road, who foots the medical bill?Now, if I'm on the road and crash my bicycle, who foots those medical bills?

Of the $700 odd per car I pay rego on... I'm thinking, should I get injured when driving then, Fair enough rego insurance should cover some. But if on a bike without rego... Then surely I shouldn't be entitled to anything... No?I'm not really clear on this... How does it work?

As for rego for cyclists, using the cost of admin to negate its existence is bogus.The counter argument would be to add the cost of admin to the total rego cost.

FWIW: I'm not an advocate of rego for cyclists. It's akin to having a rego for pedestrians, or scooters, or skateboards... The thought is absurd, and I frankly see little difference!

Interesting topic really isn't it.... I think a cheaper option would be Darwin's Theory of Evolution... Either that or surgical castration for some of the idiots on our roads both behind the wheel and behind the handlebars.

I don't think rego'ing bikes would work, I've never really spent too much time thinking about it. However if it was to work, you would have to register the cyclist, rather than the bike, I have 3 bikes, but there's no point to registering every bike is there? Someone did mention, that why would the government put barriers up to something which promotes a heathier lifestyle, if they did make it harder for people to cycle then it would ultimately cost them more in infrastructure maintenance as well as the loss of associated health benefits from cycling.

Dimis wrote:...Of the $700 odd per car I pay rego on... I'm thinking, should I get injured when driving then, Fair enough rego insurance should cover some. But if on a bike without rego... Then surely I shouldn't be entitled to anything... No?I'm not really clear on this... How does it work?...

I have private health insurance which will cover me if I have a stack on the bike. I looked into bike insurance, but the policies I saw stated that they wouldn't cover the gap not paid by my health insurance and they would also require me to claim on my health insurance first and then they might look at it. So I decided against it (this was a couple of years ago, not sure if things have changed).